In
the sense that, paradoxically, I started to be interested in a
possibility of an direct attack on the US soil already in 2000.

4

00:00:58 --> 00:01:12

For
a simple reason that I have read in the newspapers and several
documents that a possibility of such an attack had been taken into
consideration.

5

00:01:18 --> 00:01:27

On
11 September, 2001 I was supposed to be in the US to represent an non
governmental organisation, which works on drug related issues,

6

00:01:27 --> 00:01:37

and I did not go because I was afraid that an event of this type may have happened.

7

00:01:39 --> 00:01:42

The risk of such an event was announced several times.

8

00:01:43 --> 00:01:50

I'm not a magician. I'm simply a person who tries to interpret the evidence. So, I didn't go.

9

00:01:50 --> 00:01:02

I'm
surprised that the commission that examined the events of 9/11, one of
the two commissions, said that the attack had been a surprise.

10

00:02:03 --> 00:02:19

How
can you say that it was a surprise if I, a modest judge, ex
judge-instructor of the Roman court, had a perception from those
elements of information that emerged publicly that it could have
happened.

11

00:02:20 --> 00:02:35

And
they say it was a surprise, when the US authorities received a series
of data that allowed to predicate an attack of this type.

12

00:02:36 --> 00:02:34

You say that there was an active involvement of the security services.

13

00:02:45 --> 00:02:52

The facts are that the CIA was informed that Mohammed Atta was preparing the attacks.

14

00:02:53 --> 00:03:01

The CIA followed and surveyed Mohammed Atta until 1998 in Germany, in Hamburg.

15

00:03:03 --> 00:03:07

This is the fact that also the Commission knew.

16

00:03:09 --> 00:03:18

The CIA followed Mohammed Atta, also through the phone interception, until 2 June 2000.

17

00:03:20 --> 00:03:40

At this moment Mohammed Atta leaves Hamburg and goes to Venice and initiates a training at the school of Uffman.

18

00:03:42 --> 00:03:51

Here begins a series of events that would be later verified. First he did not have a visa M1 that he should have had.

19

00:03:53 --> 00:03:57

He had a visa released by the consulate in Jeddah.

20

00:03:58 --> 00:04:03

The consulate in Jeddah, as it was confirmed by several witnesses, was run by the CIA.

21

00:04:04 --> 00:04:13

So the CIA controlled whoever applied for the visa.

22

00:04:15 --> 00:04:21

This
fact is the beginning of the whole event. The consulate at Jeddah
released visas that should not have been released,#FreeOccupyOfficial
#Twitter Save your CEO!!!!!!!

23

00:04:22 --> 00:04:31

because they concerned individuals already signalled as terrorists in Saudi Arabia.

24

00:04:38 --> 00:04:48

These individuals left in January 2001. On 15 January they arrived to Los Angeles.

25

00:04:51 --> 00:04:58

The CIA was perfectly informed about it, because they released the visas in Jeddah.

26

00:05:00 --> 00:05:05

However, the CIA did not inform the FBI about it.

27

00:05:06 --> 00:05:13

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but not only the CIA knew about it. The FBI knew about it as well.

28

00:05:15 --> 00:05:25

According
to the official inquest number one, which was in part secret, but now
we know it, and the documents arrived as well at the second commission,
the official Commission, 'the 9/11 Commission report',

29

00:05:26 --> 00:05:36

the
two of the terrorists, not Muhammed Atta, but two others, lived for
about 10 months from the 15 January, in San Diego, California, in a
house of an FBI agent, Abdul Sattar Sheikh.

30

00:05:37 --> 00:05:51

Not only that, but they also received money from another FBI agent, Alfayumi.

31

00:05:55 --> 00:06:09

There are FBI agents who denounced these facts, one of whom was Kenneth Williams, also included by Jesse Ventura in his book.

32

00:06:11 --> 00:06:27

We
have to read very attentively these documents in which some FBI agents
informed about the events the head of FBI, David Mueller.

33

00:06:30 --> 00:06:48

There
is a law in the intern criminal code that says that if an authority has
a knowledge of the criminal events that are about to happen and does
not act to prevent them, this authority contributes to these facts.

34

00:06:49 --> 00:07:05

This
law is also included in the Italian criminal code, article 40, that is
'to not prevent the event that your duty is to prevent is the equivalent
of causing this event'.

35

00:07:09 --> 00:07:18

This law is also present in the American Federal law, that includes a causation by both active action and omission.

36

00:07:20 --> 00:07:31

The most positive hypothesis is that the CIA knew, but did not react.

37

00:07:33 --> 00:07:44

However, there is also anther hypothesis that should be investigated, that the CIA actively assisted those terrorists,

38

00:07:46 --> 00:07:55

helping them by releasing the visas that should not have been released to those individuals suspected of terrorism,

39

00:07:56 --> 00:08:05

FI: and by letting them stay in the US and prepare in the aviation schools.

40

00:08:05 --> 00:08:08

And this is an active assistance.

41

00:08:09 --> 00:8:24

So,
on the one hand, we have the omission in the sense of not preventing
the events; and on the other hand, the active involvement, not only by
releasing the visas,

42

00:08:25 --> 00:08:44

but
also by financing of Muhammed Atta and the others through this Sheikh
Omar Said, who was an individual extremely well known to the CIA,

43

00:08:45 --> 00:08:59

an English citizen, who was in contact with the head of the ISI, that is the Pakistani Secret Service.

44

00:09:03 --> 00:09:25

According
to numerous sources in the FBI, this head of the ISI gave an order to
Sheikh Omar to pay 120 thousand dollars to Mohammed Atta a year before
the attack on the Twin Towers, through a bank in the United Arab
Emirates.

45

00:09:27 --> 00:09:39

This relatively 'pacific' fact act led to a demission of the head of the ISI.

46

00:09:40 --> 00:09:54

But, according to the criminal law of any country, he would have been charged for the participation in the mass murder!

47

00:09:55 --> 00:10:14

So
the knowledge of the financing the terrorists by the head of the ISI's
would imply for any national court in the world the accusation of the
head of the ISI of the participation in the massacre, the moral
participation.

48

00:10:15 --> 00:10:23

These are examples of the episodes and facts that needed and need to be investigated.

49

00:10:24 --> 00:10:31

These
facts call for an investigation by the American judicial authorities.
If the American judiciary will not start this investigation, some other
authority should do it.

50

00:10:32 --> 00:10:41

That
is why I would like to ask you, why in your opinion, the official 9/11
Commission piratically did not mention those questions?

51

00:10:42 --> 00:10:47

In my opinion, there was an intention to cover up these facts, because they have provoked a clear embarrassment.

52

00:10:48 --> 00:10:54

I'm not talking here about the diverse general accusations of the whole of the American administration.

53

00:10:55 --> 00:11:14

I'm taking about the specific facts that regarded some top official within the CIA and the head of the FBI.

54

00:11:15 --> 00:11:29

Because
the head of the FBI had been repetitively informed with the reports
that had been sent to him on 5 July, on 10 July, 15 July, 6 August by
the courageous and loyal agents of FBI, and there was no follow up on
these reports.

55

00:11:30 --> 00:11:34

You have also referred to the three towers that collapsed that morning.

56

00:11:35 --> 00:11:48

That is two in the morning, hit by the planes, and the third one in the afternoon without being hit by any plane.

57

00:11:49 --> 00:11:57

It seems to me that you imply that there was a preparation of this event beyond the attack planned by the terrorists.

58

00:11:58 --> 00:12:09

To
collapse the towers by wiring them with the explosives you need
somebody to do it, and they couldn't have been the terrorists who did
it.

59

00:12:10 --> 00:12:19

Obviously, I am not a scientist. And in those cases a judge or a prosecutor has to refer to a scientist.

60

00:12:20 --> 00:12:36

From
the analysis made by the scientists, it emerged that it was impossible
that a building that had metallic robust structure could have crumbled
down in just a few seconds!

61

00:12:37 --> 00:12:53

I have seen this building that was crumbling down in a few seconds contradicting the internal structure of this building.

62

00:12:55 --> 00:13:08

I'm
saying that in this sort of cases, in all countries of the whole world,
there would be a public process against everybody involved, Mussaui,
the head of the ISI, and other identified as accomplices.

63

00:13:10 --> 00:13:30

In
this public process, you have to give the opportunity to the victims,
the families of the victims of 9/11 to receive the knowledge of the
events from the proper experts.

64

00:13:31 --> 00:13:47

Because
according to rules of the 'due process of law' defined in the US and
the countries of the common law, such assessments should not have been
done by one and the same authority, the authority that defends the state
and that was possibly responsible for these events.

65

00:13:48 --> 00:14:07

but
that these assessments are made through a cross-examination of experts.
That is, by a public expert, or an expert of a prosecutor, and by an
expert nominated by the families of the victims.

66

00:14:08 --> 00:14:19

Does
it not seem strange to you, that during the last 10 years, apart from
the process of Mussaui, who did not participate in the attacks, because
he was in prison, there was no other process initiated in the US?

67

00:14:20 --> 00:14:29

This is a very surprising fact and the indication that there was an intention to cover up the attacks.

68

00:14:30 --> 00:14:54

IF:
In my opinion there is a need for a public process in the US, in order
to give a possibility to all the parties concerned, the 'class action'
that would involve all the American citizens, but first off all the
families of the victims to know the truth which is not the official one.

69

00:14:55 --> 00:15:02

Can I ask you a juridical question? What value have those testimonies taken from people who were repeatedly water-boarded?

70

00:15:03 --> 00:15:05

They have no value.

71

00:15:05 --> 00:15:07

Also in the US?

72

00:15:07 --> 00:15:19

Also in the US, because there exist the universal rules of the just process.

73

00:15:20 --> 00:15:24

You have to consider that the US have signed the international conventions.

74

00:15:24 --> 00:15:31

To
recall just one, the International Covenant on the Civil and Political
Rights signed in New York in December 1966 and ratified by the US.

75

00:15:32 --> 00:15:39

in
this covenant, the US obligates themselves to respect the rules of the
just process, to respect the witnesses and to respect the defendants.

76

00:15:40 --> 00:15:59

Any
use of force denies the credibility of the witness, who does not speak
spontaneously, who is not a spontaneous contributor to the judicial
process.

77

00:16:00 --> 00:16:05

Such a contribution does not have any importance.

78

00:16:06 --> 00:16:14

FI:
What's more, such a person would not have been interviewed in presence
of a representative of the civil defence. Such a testimony does not have
any value.

79

00:16:15 --> 00:16:24

We
are very far here, because even the two presidents of the Commission
wrote in their book that they could not see any records of these
interrogations.

80

00:16:25 --> 00:16:30

GC:
Also, the special investigation commission could not see either
records, or verbal recordings of these interrogations. So we are in a
total darkness here.

81

00:16:31 --> 00:16:47

Yes,
but we can make some clarifications. First of all, because the State
Secret Privilege cannot be used to cover facts that concern massacres.

82

00:16:48 --> 00:16:56

This
is a universal law that applies to Italy, to the US, so it is not
possible to invoke the State Secret Privilege to prevent the knowledge
of documents which are fundamental to discover the truth in such a case.

83

00:16:57 --> 00:17:00

Also in the US?

84

00:17:01 --> 00:17:16

Also
in the US. Because this concerns the security. We are talking here
about the facts that concern the killing of over 3000 people, so the
State Secret Privilege has to be revoked,

85

00:17:17 --> 00:17:24

because it is not constitutional and, at the first place, because it is against the international conventions.

86

00:17:25 --> 00:17:35

Secondly,
there is a statute of the International Criminal Court that sets rules
that apply to all states, even those that did not signed it.

87

00:17:36 --> 00:17:45

In
your opinion, why President Obama, who came after the administration
who was involved with this tragedy, did not do anything to clarify this?

88

00:17:46 --> 00:17:49

I think the problem is that he is not well informed about this case.

89

00:17:50 --> 00:17:56

Because people were misinformed. This was a case of a continuous disinformation.

90

00:17:57 --> 00:18:04

If you look at what has happened after the 9/11 in what concerns the Niger gate.

91

00:18:05 --> 00:18:19

Do
you understand that this event of the Niger gate, that is to invent a
series of lies to justify the military intervention in Iraq was due to
the disinformation of some newspapers.

92

00:18:20 --> 00:18:27

such as Judith Miller, or the Washington Post, the New York Times, and unfortunately also La Republica,

93

00:18:28 --> 00:18:45

which before the war of March 2003, published 'facts' that later had to deny.

94

00:18:48 --> 00:18:54

But when were these lies discovered? After the war, when it was already useless.

95

00:18:55 --> 00:19:01

First,
they have alimented the theory of the preventive war, and then the war
began, and then they recognized the error, but it was useless, because
the war continued for another 7 years.

96

00:19:02 --> 00:19:07

And continues until now.

97

00:19:10 --> 00:19:16

So, I think Obama did not have a good knowledge about it. It is not that Obama knows everything. He reads newspapers.

98

00:19:18 --> 00:19:29

But
what is in the newspapers? I read a series of articles, also in
Corierre della serra by individuals who came over to Italy to theorise
about the necessity of the preventive wars.

99

00:19:30 --> 00:19:44

This
newspapers contributed to the total disinformation. And our newspapers
contributed to the distribution of the false information that were
diffused in the US.

100

00:19:45 --> 00:19:56

But
when the Secretary of the State Colin Powel goes to the United Nation,
to the Security Council, and publicly states 'we have the evidence' and
rises his hand and shows a black flask,

101

00:19:57 --> 00:20:00

and says we have the evidence that Saddam Hussein has the arms of mass destruction, can one work out there is a crime involved?

102

00:20:00 --> 00:20:19

Yes,
but here there is an intermediary case between stupidity and bad faith.
I would say stupidity rather than bed faith, because one cannot go like
this bringing this thing and say that there is evidence.

103

00:20:20 --> 00:20:31

but later on Bush recognised, after the war, that it was an error. This was not an error. It was prepared.

104

00:20:32 --> 00:20:49

and
then I want to tell you the last thing, the very important thing.
During the investigation of the 9/11 Commission it was stated that the
CIA established a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.

105

00:20:50 --> 00:21:13

This
was a lie that was later dismissed by the same Commission, but it shows
that the CIA wanted to establish this link, to blame Saddam Hussein and
justify the war.

106

00:21:15 -->00:21:18

As you can see, we cannot just examine the events of 9/11.

107

00:21:18 --> 00:21:24

We have to investigate what happened before and after the 9/11.

108

00:21:25 --> 00:21:35

GC:
I absolutely agree, there is no doubt about it. You intent to bring
this material to the attention of the International Criminal Court in
the Hague. And here are my two questions.

109

00:21:36 --> 00:21:51

GC:
First question is: the US do not recognize the territoriality of the
intervention of this Tribunal into the internal affairs of the US.

110

00:21:52 --> 00:22:00

Naturally
there are huge international implications, because immediately after
9/11, the US asked for the reunion of the NATO which took place at the
beginning of October 2001 .

111

00:22:01 --> 00:22:08

The US arrives to Brussels where were gathered all the ambassadors of the NATO and says, we have evidence.

112

00:22:09 --> 00:22:25

This
evidence was never reviled publicly. In this way the case became
European. There was a declaration made at the Nato that did not follow
any facts.

113

00:22:26 --> 00:22:53

This
is the first question I want to ask you. What the International
Criminal Court at the Hague can do and how can it react to such an
initiative like yours that has international repercussions?

114

00:22:48 --> 00:22:53

Because the whole story of the last 10 years, if you are right, and I think you are right, has to be reinvestigated.

115

00:22:55 --> 00:23:04

We have the duty and the right to know the truth, because what happened on 9/11 does not concern only the US.

116

00:23:05 --> 00:23:09

It concerns the entire humanity, because later these events resulted in two wars,

117

00:23:10 --> 00:23:14

and it resulted in the global crisis that we are experiencing now. This crisis is a child of those events.

118

00:23:15 --> 00:23:23

So, we cannot treat these events as a historical curiosity.

119

00:23:25 --> 00:23:33

At least we have to make sure there are no more preventive wars.

120

00:23:35 --> 00:23:46

So we have a duty to ask the American authorities to make an investigation of precise facts.

121

00:23:49 --> 00:24:02

If
the American authorities does not do anything, what I suspect will
happen, we have the right to apply to the Court at the Hague.

122

00:24:03 --> 00:24:14

This
International Criminal Court can, in my opinion, and according to the
praxis, intervene also in the countries that did not sign the stature of
the Court.

123

00:24:15 --> 00:24:23

For example, Gaddafi did not sign the statute and they sent an arrest warrant against him.

124

00:24:24 --> 00:24:37

This shows that the Court does not require a ratification of its statute by a state to intervene in this state.

125

00:24:39 --> 00:25:06

As it happened in case of Gaddaffi, the head of the state that did not ratify the statute.

It
is logical because there are countries in which the human rights are
violated and where the crimes against humanity are committed.

126

00:25:07 --> 00:25:12

and the International Court is competent in the matter of the crimes against humanity according to the article 7 of its statute.

127

00:25:13 --> 00:25:25

FI: When such crimes are committed the International Court can intervene.

128

00:25:28 --> 00:25:38

So
the fact that America did not sign the statute is not a legal obstacle
for the application of the jurisdiction of the Court in the US.

129

00:25:40 --> 00:25:44

It is of course a democratic country and very powerful one, but the rule is this.

130

00:25:45 --> 00:26:05

There was a precedent, a certain citizen made a complaint against the Vatican. And also the Vatican did not sign the statute.

131

00:26:07 --> 00:26:19

So,
the International Criminal Court after having examined the case and
gathered all evidence can intervene, also in the countries in which the
justice is not guaranteed and in which the human rights are violated by
the crimes against humanity.

132

00:26:20 --> 00:26:33

Technically,
how do you want to proceed now at the Court? And what are the possible
technical responses that the Tribunal has to follow?

133

00:26:34 --> 00:27:00

We
will apply to the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court with a
complaint, the best documented as possible, in which we will list the
facts that in our opinion constitute the active involvement and the
involvement by omission in the crimes against humanity.

134

00:27:01 --> 00:27:09

And
we will ask for the verification of these facts by interviewing the
witnesses that we will indicate, and examining the documents,

135

00:27:10 --> 00:27:22

and
by asking for the revocation of the State Secrets Privilege on
documents that we were not able to access and which were not accessible
even to the Commission.

136

00:27:23 --> 00:27:34

To
sum up, we will ask for a complete investigation in order to see
whether there is a legal ground to convict, or at least charge the
individuals responsible for those events.

137

00:27:35 --> 00:27:50

We
want to gather the biggest number of documents and data possible from
any source, also from the responsible media, and also from the official
investigative agencies.

138

00:27:52 --> 00:28:09

We
also have this book by Jessie Ventura and his research. So we will
gather all evidence and incitations that will allow the reconstruction
of the dynamics of the facts,

139

00:28:10 --> 00:28:19

and
then the responsibilities of those who had the duty to intervene but
did not intervene, and then those who helped the terrorists to
accomplish the attacks of 9/11.

140

00:28:20 --> 00:28:27

So how long will it take to have a response, is there any deadline?

141

00:28:28 --> 00:28:39

there
is no legal deadline. This is not a crime against a person, this would
be a private prosecution. This is a crime against humanity, such as
9/11; these crimes are imprescriptible.

142

00:28:41 --> 00:28:47

In this case the complaint can be made in any moment.

143

00:28:49 --> 00:28:54

So
first we have to complete all the documents, then we can also
supplement them, as it is not said that we have to provide them all at
once.

144

00:28:55 --> 00:28:59

and
then we make a complaint that I will sign asking others whether they
want to sign as well after having examined it and supplemented it.